| Thursday,
November 12, 2009
We have a great deal of mail regarding consumer electronics and
airplanes. Begin with a correction
A correction regarding the history of portable game
consoles.
The Atari Lynx and the Nintendo GameBoy were both
released 20 years ago, in 1989; the Lynx never really took off, and the
GameBoy took off in the early 1990s. Prior to that, there were a few
primitive things like the Atari TouchMe (basically, a crude handheld
predecessor version of the once-ubiqitous Simon electronic game) and those
dumb LED-based 'football' games.
--- Roland Dobbins
=
Hello Dr Pournelle,
In the consumer electronics on airliners discussion,
Roland Dobbins says that he doubt the story of "Alan" attributing a plane RF
interference incident to a hand-held game console. Dobbins assures us that
there was no hand-held game machine 20 years ago.
This contradicts my memories of getting a Microvision
console around 1980, in my teens. I did a quick search, and sure enough,
Milton Bradley did indeed release the Microvision cartridge-based, hand-held
LCD console in 1979 (http://www.handheldmuseum.com/MB/uVUS.htm). I doubt it
was designed with any kind of RF shielding in mind.
To give you an example of how poorly shielded consumer
electronics was back in the day, I'll refer you to to 8-bit computer
folklore of the late 70s. Many computer magazines published stories about
how to use an AM radio to "listen" to your computer's CPU. To do so, you
simply had to put an AM radio received near a TRS-80, for example, and tune
it to long wave. In spite of the low CPU frequencies of the days (less than
2 MHz typically), notable RF noise could be detected up in the tens of MHz
from several feet away. Most machines radiated harmonics generously.
Plugging extensions (that is, PCB boards) into hobbyist machines increased
the RF noise even more.
In today's ham radio forums, it's common to find
threads about how to find and suppress sources of interferences (QRN) around
the house. Consumer electronics is by far the worst offender.
And yet, these days, consumer electronics is designed
with FCC specs in mind. Cheap knock-offs and defective models can make RF
noise much worse. An apparently insignificant defect in shielding can turn a
cable (such as an earphone) into an RF-emitting antenna. So as an engineer
who occasionally battled with the RF noise issue myself, I understand why
airlines ask people to turn off their electronics. Meanwhile, as a
passenger, I grumble and curse these overly cautious policies, of course.
--Fred Mora
==
Jerry,
I know of at least one cargo aircraft (I won't say
which one) where cell phones of one specific carrier set off the Fire
Warning signal in the cockpit.
Before I install any system that goes on an aircraft
we have to perform very expensive certification tests, and sometimes you get
interference anyway. Consumer electronics clearly are not tested to the
rigors of the Mil. Standards, so I would certainly expect them to be far
more problematic.
Mark E. Horning, Physicist, L-3 Communications
==
Dr. P,
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Dobbins: There
is one immensely significant difference between electronics during
takeoff/landing and at cruising altitude and that is the proximity of the
ground. Any pilot will vouch that a brief disruption of flight systems is
much more survivable when the ground is at least a minute or two away versus
right flippin' there.
That said, I think that a couple of other data are
worth mentioning:
1. As I recall, the original requirement to turn off
cell phones on takeoff and landing had a ground-based rationale entirely
separate from the whole interference issue: cell phones whizzing past towers
at triple-digit speeds caused problems for the cell networks trying to track
which tower was the current best for contact with the subscriber. 2. The
last time I looked, avoiding failure with a worst-case option of failing to
a safe mode is a fundamental design tenet for flight-control systems. Flight
electronics, by necessity, must be able to continue operation in an RFI-unfriendly
environment. I would think milliwatt-strength emissions by consumer
electronics would not hold a candle to the electrical surges induced by
high-powered radar, in-flight static electricity and cross-airframe voltage
differentials, not to mention cross-talk between cables (with the caveat
that a low-power emitter in close proximity to a wire run can trump a
high-power emitter a few miles away).
On a totally unrelated front, I suspect that there was
an additional mindset which clouded the Army's treatment of Major Hasan. As
you may recall, each time our military has been mobilized to go in harm's
way, there have been service members who resisted deploying because they had
thought enlisting (or ROTC) was just a good way to get some marketable job
skills or get their college education paid for. Many folks (myself included)
become rather pig-headed in dealing with these folks, taking an almost
knee-jerk stance of "You took the king's shilling, now you get to earn it."
I would note that the Army's personnel bureaucracy seems almost hard-wired
to take that stance, especially after all the arguments from folks who got
caught up in stop-loss orders. This would mean that security measures meant
to weed out potential infiltrators will inherently be resisted by measures
meant to smack down the duty-dodgers. In that clash, we can only hope that
somebody exercises intelligent discretion (rare as that commodity has been
for much of this war).
Watching poppies grow,
Bill Clardy
And indeed I remember using my office radio to get
the sound effects for a Star Trek game from an S-100 Buss computer. Phasers,
and torpedoes.
I agree with your conclusions. The probabilities of
significant interference are small, but the consequences could be large. The
ritual of turning off electronics before takeoff and on landing approaches
is a small inconvenience, a minor irritation compared to the many other
annoyances of travel today.
In any event I I think we have pretty well
exhausted this discussion topic.
==============
'A wind arose from the south, strong and deadly,
bringing with it vast columns of whirling sand, which entirely covered up
the troops and caused them wholly to disappear.'
The supposedly unreliable Herodotus is vindicated yet
again:
<http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/
cambyses-army-remains-sahara.html>
-- Roland Dobbins
===============
Apple Rejects My Caricature App | Tom's MAD Blog_PC
run amuck
Apple rejects an iPhone app for finding congress folk,
because a caricature was done for each one, by an artist who works for MAD
magazine. You may find it amusing, Tim.
http://www.tomrichmond.com/
blog/2009/11/09/apple-rejects-
my-caricature-app/
Tim
=============== China
Declares Space War Inevitable.
<http://www.dodbuzz.com/
2009/11/04/china-declares-
space-war-inevitable/>
- Roland Dobbins
========== Are Black
Hole Starships Possible?
<http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/
arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1803v1.pdf>
--- Roland Dobbins
============= : Hot
CO2
As for money and mouths, I'd say Gore was putting the
latter where the former is.
Here's maybe some of the reason he's backed off
slightly on the COO-COO causality bit:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4
Falsification of GH Physics
Brian H.
============= OK, now
this I would never have predicted, EVER
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/
prof_busted_in_columbia_gal_punch_
JmsXQ3NzaAt8uG6uUySGTN
A male Columbia University professor punched a woman
in the face.
The male was black. The female was white. It occurred
during a vocal dispute about race relations and "white privilege". It is not
clear to me that this has anything whatsoever to do with the basic fact that
a male professor hit a female in the face.
Jerry, in the world I grew up in, a university
professor would die of shame before he would throw a punch in anger.
--John
I confess I was shocked as well. I recall some
bitter debates in the academic senate, but they never came to the threat
of blows. ============
Category error
Hello Jerry,
Once again, Category Error raises its ugly head. The
fact that a problem cannot be defined, for whatever reason, (in this case,
political correctness) precludes a solution.
Quoting you: "Are all Muslims enemies of everyone not
part of the House of Submission to Islam?"
The question of course is self answering. The
murder/subjugation of non-Muslims is a (maybe THE) central tenet of the
faith. In EVERY society around the world with a significant, but
non-majority, percentage of Muslims, a noticeable subset of them take their
religion seriously--and murder their non-Muslim neighbors with gay abandon.
In Muslim majority societies, the Muslims simply impose sharia law and
subjugate--or murder--non-Muslims.
Our government, in its infinite wisdom, is encouraging
the Muslims within our borders to ''Be all that you can be, Muslimwise!",
encouraging the importation of new Muslims, and subjugating our own culture
to that of the Muslims when the two conflict.
We, in the immortal and deadly accurate words of
someone or the other, are well and truly 'sowing the wind'. The harvest is
predictable.
Bob Ludwick
============= 15
hours.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/
article-1226672/Asteroid-scrapes-past-
Earth-just-8-700miles-away--15-hours-warning.html>
--- Roland Dobbins
Space is large. Earth is a small target. Small is
vulnerable. God helps those who help themselves. Of course a 7 meter rock
isn't much of a threat, but we are finding there are a lot of such rocks
out there. =============
: Balloon Boy and punishments for False Statements to
Officials?
Hi Jerry,
I have not written for a long time but the news of the
Balloon Boy prosecution has moved me to action... at least moved my fingers
to action of propelling electrons in your direction.
I saw this below story and remembered your earlier
disgust that you could be punished for making a false statement when you had
not been under oath. This prosecution would go against that. How would you
deal with this kind of hoax?
(CNN) -- The Colorado parents in last month's
notorious "balloon boy" case will plead guilty to offenses for
creating a hoax that their son had flown away in a large balloon.
Richard and Mayumi Heene are to plead Friday morning
in Larimer County Court, according to a statement issued by Richard
Heene's attorney. Mayumi Heene is expected to plead guilty to an
offense of false reporting to authorities, a misdemeanor of the lowest
level, according to the attorney. Richard Heene is expected to plead
guilty to a felony offense of attempting to influence a public servant.
Though the Heenes could receive jail time for the
charges, the prosecutor has recommended probation, Richard Heene's
attorney said.
We are former Iowans who sold the home, and are ocean
cruisers living the dream in the islands aboard our 41 foot Catamaran, Angel
Louise for the past three years.
Ed Kelly
Ed & Sue Kelly aboard USSV Angel Loiuse Currently
anchored & floating happily at Salinas, PR
Your point is well made. Yet surely there is a
difference between Martha Stewart who said, not under oath, that she
hadn't done something that, had she done it, would not have been a crime;
and the Heene's whose false report launched rescue aircraft and endangered
lives. When one of my boys ran away (actually it was his birthday and he
was going down to Buddy Brown's toy store because they had presents for 4
year olds on their birthdays, only he got lost) the police immediately
began a search. If I had falsely reported that I'd expect to pay.
There has to be a difference here. Not sure how
to draw a legal distinction, but I know it's there.
Fair winds and smooth seas!
============ Oath of
Enlistment
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
I heartily agree with your "modest proposal" to renew
the oath of enlistment before deploying. I'd like to suggest a modification.
The Army (and I am sure the Marines and Navy) requires a review of the Code
of Conduct (for POWs) to be given annually. Requiring the oath to be given
at the same time will inhibit the temptation to "sign off" on the training
("Oh, Suuuure, Sergeant Major/Master Chief! We did that training...nudge,
nudge, wink, wink"). Further, I'd require the oath be given by at least a
captain or naval lieutenant (O3) or higher, and not be passed down to the
most junior 2nd lieutenant or ensign. Troops need to be reminded of why they
are ultimately serving. It isn't for a paycheck or the GI Bill! Also, giving
the oath annually will involve all the troops, not just those deploying.
I was involved in countless NCO bull sessions
regarding the status of conscientious objectors. The consensus was that such
status was desirable and even necessary "in your day" because there was a
draft and those opposed to war didn't have any other choice. But "in my day"
and today, there is a simple choice: don't enlist! We regarded those who
decided right before deployment that war was a Bad Thing in which they
suddenly did not want to participate were nothing more than cowards who
should at the very least be booted out on their kiesters with a Bad Conduct
Discharge and no benefits. Hassan enlisted after Gulf War I. He knew very
well that he could end up in a war against Muslims. He's had over 8 years
since 9/11 to get out. But he took the training and took the paycheck. I
advocate either a bullet or dancing Danny Deever for him. One friend thinks
he should be tried under Texas law, where he stands a much better chance of
actually being executed.
Thanks for listening to my ramblings; I'll pass your
suggestion along to my comrades who are still on active duty.
Sincerely,
Frank Luxem SFC, USA, (Ret)
====================
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
